Option to Restrict Group IMs to Officers

This feature is badly needed as it would greatly reduce spam and unnecessary mass IM's to large groups. Please consider implementation.

I disagree with this idea. Do you not belong to a group to be part of that group in all aspects, even communication? There is already a way to combat spam in groups, its called removal of the spamming member from the group by the officers.

I vote NO on this proposal!

Alexander: That's up to the group. I'd hate to see it be restricted just because one or two groups want everyone to be included. If you want that, use it in your group. You don't need to enforce it in OTHER people's groups. I support it. Always good to have the options.

I understand it as an option, but with all options it can be severly abused. I belonged to one group who had one officer who could not stand criticism of other officers, so attempted to restrict general discussion in the group by ejecting those members.

Also, the founder of several groups, I use the groups messaging system to communicate so at the entire group can see the responses.

Sure, go ahead and put in the option, but you will see it severely abused and a lot of disgrunted group members.

Leave stupid pointless spammy groups *AHEM*

Like I said, this would be proposed as an OPTION...

my reasoning for this is that I am the sole officer of a group of over 250 members at the moment... every new person that joins the group seems to take an interest in sending out a "Hello" or some obvious technical question to those hundereds of members. As you can imagine this tends to get rather annoying for the members of the group... it is not truely 'spam' but is deffinately labled as such and in turn degrades the group.

I am not saying that a group would be unable to respond to my messages, simply unable to innitiate a mass group IM.

Thank you Darwin for your support.

Or... you can just make a folder for the officers and IM the folder? Seems there is already a system for what you have in mind...

You are misunderstanding. I do not want members of a group who are not officers to be able to send mass messages to the entire group. Instead, they would only be able to reply to a message that is sent by an officer.

Ah, well, in that case, I don't endorse this product because I don't think leaders should remove the voice of the people.

Bump. I need this more and more everyday.

Would anyone else care to endorse this proposal?

if its that bad donnie, leave the group